Watson Murder Case - Discussion

[K_girl]

Watson admitted that when he left Tina he understood the consequences of his actions quite clearly:

"WATSON: ..I was thinking back to that current and I was like ‘my God she’s going to be lost’ and that was probably the reason why I didn’t want to leave her.."

To me, this is similar to claiming a lack of understanding of the consequences of one's actions, similar to insanity or incompetency-type of defenses. It's going to be hard for him to pass the smell test on that basis with a statement like that.

That is why I think his only chance is to testify and basically deny almost everything he said. If he doesn't take the stand to revoke those statements, its not going to be easy for the defense lawyer to refute his own client's statements. In essence, this is what many of you have been talking about. You are giving examples of situations that there is no basis for in terms of statements that were given in this case. If you are saying, oh, he could have made-up all this stuff as an excuse because he felt remorse or guilty. Isn't he going to have to get on the stand and say so? I'm going on an assumption that he won't testify and he is going to stand by all of his statements.

The defense will have to come up with a whole different story to refute Dr. Stutz' statement and right now, I feel they have made a mistake with their recent releases to the media.

Dr. Stutz described two divers who had a hold of Tina. The first diver who had her in a bear-hug, let her go, she sank and that diver swam away. Now, the defense attorney on the Today Show claimed that what Dr. Stutz saw was with the first diver in the bear-hug with Tina was the rescue diver. The problem with that is - the rescue diver never left Tina to sink to the bottom and swam away. Dr. Stutz watched as Tina sank alone and helpless. Then he saw the rescue diver go after Tina and bring her to the surface - that was the second diver. The first diver had to be Watson, because no else had a hold of Tina.

At the same time, the defense has also claimed in the recent articles refuting the computer evidence that Dr. Stutz saw Watson swim away from Tina very quickly trying to create a scenario of a rapid ascent as Watson proclaimed quite vigorously saying he was surprised he didn't get the bends. Here, they are basically admitting that Dr. Stutz did indeed, see Watson swim away from Tina. Problem is, Watson said he swam at a 45 degree angle to the anchor line and "shook" a man of Asian descent to get their attention. That is not a description of a rapid ascent as he left Tina. So, if the defense is going to admit the first part, that indeed Watson swam away from Tina in a rapid ascent, are they going to accept Dr. Stutz' asertion that he had her in a bear-hug and then he saw her sink as he swam away? I think they will either have to accept his testimony in whole as a credible witness, but won't be able to parse out pieces that they want to be held-up as truth and other parts as Dr. Stutz not being a good eye witness.

Dr. Stutz' testimony is going to present a real problem for the defense and I don't know how they are going to square it with Watson's statements. If the jury finds Dr. Stutz to be a credible witness, how in the world are they going to deal with his testimony that he saw Watson have a hold of Tina in bear-hug, thinks Watson is rescuing her and then watches as Watson just lets her go to allows her to sink helplessly to the bottom while he swims away? Should the jury just ingore Dr. Stutz' statement as if doesn't exist? No one who thinks there is not a case for prosecution has been able to explain this away in a rational way on this forum. It's gone pretty much ignored. Dr. Stutz is an emergency room doctor, trained to observe and make fast decisions. If he can't be established as a credible witness - I don't think anyone can.

Dr. Stutz' statements were left competely out of consideration of the Australian plea deal, just like it is standard procedure in Australia to leave out even key facts in their plea deals in order to get the plea deals. The sentencing judge only considered what Watson said happened to sentence him for manslaughter. There was no mention of anything else. That alone - was enough for a manslaughter conviction. Imagine what may happen if all the evidence is actually considered in an actual trial?

 

[Kern]

When did Dr Stutz 1st mention what he saw?
Has anyone else in the class or the instructor corroborated what he says?

 

[Ayisha]

2. I am aware that the prosecution in Australia had suggested that Watson turned Tina's air off, etc. Other than that that would explain asphyxiation, is there any actual evidence of this other than the inference that Watson had an alleged motive? Is there some evidence that would preclude asphyxiation unless Tina's air was turned off, such that the air being turned off is the only explanation for her death? (If there was some other credible explanation for her death, would that raise a reasonable doubt in anyone's mind here?)

I have always wondered if Tina also had a computer and if so, if it was air-integrated and what it recorded. Her computer, if any, could be pivotal in showing her gas consumption or lack thereof at varying points, her depth in relation to Watson's, and most importantly, whether her pressure reduced drastically at any point and then got turned back on - or if the pressure remained constant throughout her time in the water. If she had an air-integrated computer to log her dive, it could also show how long her breathing had been stopped before she was brought up and if it fit with the events as they were told.

 

[bowlofpetunias]

Watson admitted that when he left Tina he understood the consequences of his actions quite clearly:

"WATSON: ..I was thinking back to that current and I was like ‘my God she’s going to be lost’ and that was probably the reason why I didn’t want to leave her.."

To me, this is similar to claiming a lack of understanding of the consequences of one's actions, similar to insanity or incompetency-type of defenses. It's going to be hard for him to pass the smell test on that basis with a statement like that.

That is why I think his only chance is to testify and basically deny almost everything he said. If he doesn't take the stand to revoke those statements, its not going to be easy for the defense lawyer to refute his own client's statements. In essence, this is what many of you have been talking about. You are giving examples of situations that there is no basis for in terms of statements that were given in this case. If you are saying, oh, he could have made-up all this stuff as an excuse because he felt remorse or guilty. Isn't he going to have to get on the stand and say so? I'm going on an assumption that he won't testify and he is going to stand by all of his statements.

Dictionary.com

–adjective 1. no longer possessed or retained: lost friends.

2. no longer to be found: lost articles.

3. having gone astray or missed the way; bewildered as to place, direction, etc.: lost children.

4. not used to good purpose, as opportunities, time, or labor; wasted: a lost advantage.

5. being something that someone has failed to win: a lost prize.

6. ending in or attended with defeat: a lost battle.

7. destroyed or ruined: lost ships.

8. preoccupied; rapt: He seems lost in thought.

9. distracted; distraught; desperate; hopeless: the lost look of a man trapped and afraid.

Synonyms
1. forfeited, gone, missing. 3. confused, perplexed. 4. squandered.

Seems like the English language leaves a lot of wiggle room here!

Regarding Dr Stutz's credibility as a witness in THIS situation. The good doctor was on a course in a foreign environment. It may not be that difficult for the lawyers to convince the jury that his powers of observation and decision making in such a foreign and unfamiliar environment could not be assumed to be as reliable as in "his environment" in ER.

UnderExposed the only expert on Australian Law who has been involved here is unfortunately no longer posting. IMHO lacking someone with expertise on Australian law means that coming to conclusions about the Australian process of plea bargaining in general and this case in particular is stretching things a bit.

Some people don't understand "Safety stop". If Gabe equated "Safety Stop" with "Deco Stop" like many divers seem to... skipping the safety stop... IS bolting to the surface.

Interesting thought. If Gabe swam for the anchor line against current at 45 degrees that could explain his "slow" ascent. If he was too unfamiliar with current.. he may have instinctively gone for that for the security. I wonder if he had either the skill, competence or confidence that he could do a midwater ascent without the crutch the line provided. If he is used to diving in quarries devoid of current what would seem minor to us may seem significant to him.

That said. IMHO they were both out of their depth and he displayed either arrogance or over confidence and poor judgment in choosing this dive site! I have always had that dive on my "bucket list" but haven't got to do it yet. Initially I didn't dive it because I just didn't have the experience to feel competent to do it since then I just haven't had the chance to do it. IMHO that site is too challenging for new divers.

Bruce I don't disagree with you on much and I can see your rationale regarding this thing going to trial. I agree that transparency is a good thing to a point but forcing things to a trail for transparency may be a bit extreme in some cases. A person shouldn't be forced to trial because they have been the object of a media circus!

 

[bowlofpetunias]

I have always wondered if Tina also had a computer and if so, if it was air-integrated and what it recorded. Her computer, if any, could be pivotal in showing her gas consumption or lack thereof at varying points, her depth in relation to Watson's, and most importantly, whether her pressure reduced drastically at any point and then got turned back on - or if the pressure remained constant throughout her time in the water. If she had an air-integrated computer to log her dive, it could also show how long her breathing had been stopped before she was brought up and if it fit with the events as they were told.

Very interesting thought Ayisha. I have heard that the Operator requires people to have computers to dive this site. If they don't have their own the Operator will provide one. As you state some of the valuable information would only be available if it was air integrated...

 

[theduckguru]

A prejudice is an assumption made about someone or something before having the adequate knowledge to do so with accuracy.

 

[ItsBruce]

A prejudice is an assumption made about someone or something before having the adequate knowledge to do so with accuracy.

This would specifically include most scuba divers in connection with something that happened on a scuba dive. Most of us have some knowledge, but not necessarily adequate knowledge. Just think of all the differing opinions we on SB have of any number of different aspects of diving.

Also: IMHO, the best evidence in favor of acquittal will come from Dr. Stutz. It is his testimony that casts reasonable doubt on Watson having turned Tina's air off long enough for her to die and then turning it back on or to have removed the regulator from her mouth so she drowned and then put it back in.

I'm not sure if Watson will have to take the stand. It would be stupid to deny saying what he said. Not only is most of it probably recorded, but in a swearing match, he will lose. Better is to challenge those who heard what he said with the context and circumstances. My favorite example, and the one I actually use in practice, comes from the movie "My Cousin Vinny" where the suspect uses the words "I shot the clerk," but as an expression of surprise at being accused of it. And, I'm inclined to think experts on stress and psychology could testify about the incongruities in what Watson said.

 

[Ayisha]

Some people don't understand "Safety stop". If Gabe equated "Safety Stop" with "Deco Stop" like many divers seem to... skipping the safety stop... IS bolting to the surface.

Skipping a safety stop from his max depth of 45 feet could be considered bolting to the surface??

Something that is interesting that Kgirl alluded to earlier is that arguments are being made for Watson that he himself has apparently not made. Hmm...

 

[DandyDon]

I certainly do not know much about Gabe and what I have read has been from questionable news sources only, including mistakes by investigating police with his dive computer and such. It is odd that no info on Tina's computer has surfaced; integrated or not, it would still yield significant info pertinent to the case. Surely the police thot of that...??

It may be a waste of money to take the charges to a criminal trial as it does not seem that they have a case and the extradition was really done more for show. Tina's parent may well take him to a civil trial, and we just might see the evidence someday.

At best, while he may be innocent of murder, my personal feelings is that he was never much of a diver. If he copped a plea to being a poor dive buddy on the Australian charges, well - I still don't understand that. Really makes me want to stick to solo diving with my pony. Did he think that society would forgive him if he served his time? He will be known as the Honeymoon Killer for the rest of his life anyway. I hope his current wife is very disciplined with birth control as I can't see that marriage lasting the times and it would be sad to bring kids into the scene now.

From another court story I stumbled across, I was glad to read these findings excerpted from Bad golfers can ignore etiquette of yelling fore: court | Reuters where one golfer sued his friend for beaning him...

"A person who chooses to participate in a sport or recreational activity consents to certain risks that are inherent in and arise out of the nature of the sport generally and flow from such participation," the court wrote.

Anand was looking for his own ball on the golf course when Kapoor teed off without warning, struck him in the left eye and detached his retina, according to the suit. Anand said he suffered a permanent loss of vision.

Earlier this year, the New Hampshire Supreme Court ruled against a golfer who sued a golf course after he was struck in the eye. The court said the golf course had no duty to protect the golfer against the risks of playing the game.

 

[bowlofpetunias]

Skipping a safety stop from his max depth of 45 feet could be considered bolting to the surface??

Something that is interesting that Kgirl alluded to earlier is that arguments are being made for Watson that he himself has apparently not made. Hmm...

My comment was that Gabe's statement that he was afraid of getting bent because of his bolting to the surface may be because he like many divers feel that failing to do a safety stop is dangerous. If that was his erroneous perception at the time then failing to stop was the equivalent of bolting to the surface!

Kgirl also said earlier that she was not concerned if either side got ideas about how to conduct their cases from our discussion here. I see no reason why exploring opinions and discussions that may contribute to a guilty verdict are any more or less valid than exploring opinions and discussions that may contribute to a not guilty verdict.

Many people are happy to express their opinion of his guilt and choose to examine all the available "evidence" to support that position. Some of us are not so convinced, some of us are trying to be open minded and some of us may even enjoy the role of Devil's advocate